MEMORANDUM **

Carlos Javier Lopez appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Lopez argues that the district court erred by failing to consider and address his non-frivolous arguments in favor 'of a reduced sentence and by denying his section 3582(c)(2) motion based exclusively on his post-sentencing prison disciplinary record. The record reflects that the district court considered the relevant sentencing factors and appropriately addressed the parties’ arguments. See United States v. Ruiz-Apolonio, 657 F.3d 907, 920 (9th Cir. 2011) (“The district court is not required to provide a detailed explanation as to each of its reasons for rejecting every argument made by counsel.”); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-92 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, considering the 18 U.S.C; § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Lopez’s prison disciplinary record and the need to protect the public, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Lopez’s motion. See United States v. Lightfoot, 626 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2010).

AFFIRMED.